Olympus OM-D E-M1X review

The Olympus OM-D E-M1X is a dual-grip Micro Four Thirds mirrorless camera aimed at pro sports and action photographers. It's designed to be rugged, durable, fast and capable, and has a price tag to match that ambition.

The EM1X uses fast readout and fast processing both to provide high-level AF performance and fast burst shooting as well as a range of novel modes and features. It also promises new levels of performance in terms of weather resistance.

I think Olympus released the E-M1X first as a flagship body. Olympus also has a good track record of trickling down their features and tech to other camera models while adding improvements along the way. I have no doubt you'll see many of the feature in this body in a future E-M1mk3, E-M5mk3, etc.

E-M1X sure has areas where it is very strong. The problem is that if one needs "pro-level" equipment, m43 is not the first choice as a system. I also doubt that Olympus has caught Sony (and Fuji) in af-performance. At least my experience with E-M1 mk2 af have been more or less frustrating. E-M1X type camera desperately needs Sony A9 level auto focus .

Dust99eye, you are totally victim of DPR incorrect review style. Tracking and Focusing has nothing to do with each others. They are totally different functions. Tracking operates only in X and Y axis, while focusing operates in Z-axis from minimal focus distance to infinity (and past it) but not in X and Y axis.

dust99eye - the purpose of moving Af points is not to track the subject, it is to *select* the part of the scene that you want the AF to focus on.

No camera, including any Sony, has the ability to decide *what* you want to focus on. Eye-AF as implemented best by Sony, and available from most other brands, can only select eyes or faces - it can't possibly know which part of e.g. a landscape, you want to focus on. Not everyone wants to photograph faces.

Brilliant camera .... those who dont have this camera and never used one but just touch it only and suddenly become experts , suck it up. Love this system as are em5 mkii and em1 mk ii great for everything if you know how to use this cameras. Now you can carry 3 to 4 oly cameras for weddings or outdoors shoots with a bunch of lens but still not get tired of carrying your bag.

There is only one rating worse of IPX1 rating: IPX0 which means no weather protection at all.

IPX1 means that the subject can sustain water drops in ten minutes (and only drops coming vertically to the subject (camera). Not protected for more water than drops and not protected for water not coming from strait over the subject.

Olympus is only one that gives any rating at all. And they have video showing how they treat it in much more demanding manner than specification says. It is 30min (or was it 60min) under high water pressure spraying from all directions. More than you would get by sinking camera in 1m depth of water.

As a long time Olympus shooter, it is so easy to pick out the clueless people who 1- know nothing other than what they watch and read and 2- know nothing but attempt to contribute but only look stupid to those who do shoot Olympus.

It truly amazes me here at Sony’s DP..this Ford Edsel of the Camera world, got just 4 points behind D850. Today I am announcing that the staff at Sony’s DP Review, are not firing on all thrusters, just a few fries short of a happy meal.

I think all ff cams are for users deeply invested in expensive ff lenses to the point they cannot improve their iq in photography using a medium format cam.I guess having ditched Nikon ff, Leica m, canon ff, and APS-C iin favor of m43, I should have serious problems with the iq of my photography.

Nah, i think he choose to not bite ..... Oly have made a near perfect body for anyone intending to use this camera in the fashion it was designed for.... it's not meant to be a small cramped layout that you end up not pressing the right button because they are all crammed together.I have handed mine now to a number of Canon DSLR users and to a person they have commented how comfortable and light it felt .... everything is relative.

Huh... that whole reply makes zero sense.... I have friends that have em5’s and em10s, I personally own a couple small body M43 Cameras and find them all to be too small and cramped... the em1 series with grips are the first M43 Cameras that have felt comfortable in the hand... The EM1X has nearly molded in... some more shooting time and all the buttons will fall to hand without thought.Outside of lens eco-systems it is camera ergonomics that keeps pro’s especially locked into even one model let alone a brand

Looking at some of your pics, the E-M1X has far less grain at ISO 3200 than the Lumix FZ200 has at ISO100. (Comparing the FZ200 pic of the flying swan with the E-M1X pic of the cedar waxwing.) Nice bird shots!

I agree with you, they've produced a perfect camera.. Your summary says it all...thank. like you, I LOVE owning this camera..The lighter weight with large lenses is perfect for those of us that have suffered from stokes and can no longer hold heavier systems.

Why is there so little mention of the hand-held high resolution? 50MP hand held, better dynamic range, less noise, etc. That's one of the major tech breakthroughs of this camera. Like most of Oly's tech innovations, we'll have to wait until it is adopted by CaNikon before many reviewers start to see it.

Exactly. In the coming months and years, photographers will slowly start using this feature and word will spread. True that it won't help with sports photography, but it is ideal for say weddings where photographers can now get high resolution images of the bride and groom to make large-sized prints. Previously, high res could not be used to take photos of people.

The PDR comparison is misleading. Olympus changed their ISO definition conventions back to normal with the E-M1X where the E-M1ii uses a Fuji like convention which makes it look like it performs better than it does in those PDR charts.

Finally catching on to smartphone tech. It's about time. Would be cool if they tweaked it to include a night shot mode and a mode which didn't necessarily have to be 48MP so you could take advantage of the stacking without the huge file.

Finally catching on to smartphone tech. It's about time. Would be cool if they tweaked it to include a night shot mode and a mode which didn't necessarily have to be 50MP so you could take advantage of the stacking without the huge file.

I retire for real this December, I hope to sell some of my pics at the local fairs, I have the amazing Epson p800 and I printed an amazing 17"x100" pano of the southern California desert, the folks I showed it, They were amazed at the sharpness of the picture. You can see details of miles away, all hand held with the amazing 40-150 f2.8 pro lens. This lens is always on my mkii as my goto lens. I also have the grip attached, and I am amused by the rhetoric of the EM1X as being too big. I find the grip balances the bigger lenses nicely. I would like to have the EM1X, but can't justify the cost. Instead I'll purchase the 8mm f1.8 pro lens. I know that the 8mm is specialized, but what fun it could be ....

This hugeness is for processors and their cooling as well as for battery life and grip and durability enhancements. There is no other way to have these features without increasing size. So, there are reasons, for this size, so they appeal to specific target group. Compare equivalent cams. Otherwise Panasonic gf1 or oly em10 Mark III is so much smaller than Nikon D5 or possible future Eos r with integrated grip and as much processing power, that currently doesn't exists...

Moreover, size is getting less important to demonstrate the smallness technology can give. Size often, and its a trend, has to do with the ergonomics a company want to give to a model and not with the ability to design smaller cams. As Robert Cicala demonstrated, even canon 5d mark iv could be much smaller than previous cams, but size didn't change. Sometimes we must stop judging cams as a technology showcase of minutarization ( which is what Sony with A7 did), and judge them as ...cams.

I appreciate that Olympus wants me to affirm its proof of concept camera for the future EM1 Mark III by buying this camera that is twice the price of an EM1 Mark II, twice the size and weight, and has a sensor about the same image quality.

Some manufacturers have made motor cars with the times. This manufacturer has built a huge speed carriage and then announced that their giant carriage maintenance is cheap and light. Other manufacturers' motor car maintenance is very expensive and heavy.

I can't say I agree with that, are you referring to the photons to photos results? Those look different because the ISO definition, well technically the mid tone offset bias for RAW, is different between the two.

Beautiful camera, who knows with Pro lenses (type 12-100f4, 12-40f2.8, 40-150f2.8, etc).Personally I still use Olympus EM5, but I'd like Olympus to provide me (for its advertising) equipment and financial support for the Tokyo 2020 paralympics. Now I have paused the project, after documenting Turin 2006, Beijing 2008, Vancouver 2010, London 2012, because although they define me a sports photographer, just for these projects, I photograph for the artistic spirit, therefore anything, adding the personal look.A gift for you all about my personal review book on the Olympus EM5 and the use of manual lens at the London 2012I hope you download and read it, perhaps sending me a comment.

There is precision feeling (and speed) working with Olympus cameras and especially lenses that most often cannot be found in DSLRs. For me a cameras iq is an important parameter but most important is ergonomics and feel while photographing. Similar to how a guitar sings to you. Em1X has its strengths, covers the widest range of scenarios better on the whole, and for sure its the most unique full body cam.

Olympus has always got the ergonomics and feeling better than others. They just "get it". They are more pleasant to operate and use as the cameras doesn't get on the way. They have excellent "man-machine" interface and menu system.

Or, whether this camera, with its HHHRS feature, can be used by landscape or other photogs needing high resolution to take similar pictures with close enough IQ as those cameras with a similar price, or weight, e.g. A7III or Z7. After all, this Handheld HiRes is the unique feature of this camera. The comments I could find in this review were very vague.

True. Here's a better review of this camera, talking about its strengths and appears to be from an Olympus-familiar user. Dpreview reviewers definitely hardly use m43 (and that's fine) but then they shouldn't be reviewing it: https://www.creativeislandphoto.com/blog/olympus-e-m1x

"Dpreview reviewers definitely hardly use m43 (and that's fine) but then they shouldn't be reviewing it"

In general, I don't think pre-familiarity should be a prerequisite for reviewing a camera, unless it's explicitly targeted at people already using the system. The E-M1X may be such a camera, but most cameras aren't. If the manufacturer is also targeting people using other systems (or complete beginners), then it's fine to review the camera from that standpoint, IMHO.

@plaken Very nice photos. We must review the photos and the product relative to our needs and balancing editorial perspective. So long as people aren’t misrepresenting the images, as they often do with smartphones, I’m fine. What can this product do for me?

I’ve been looking at the camera and am intrigued by the power. I really do wish that Olympus would up the color resolution.

I find it curious that in the AF comparison no mention was made of the Sony A9 which is a more closely related type of camera, mirrorless, than the Nikon and Canon DSLRs that were mentioned. Also, when comparing the AF it seemed they were splitting hairs by elevating slight differences to something important.

If I needed to shoot sports I'd get the A9 and Sigma lenses (and MC11). If I were hiking, traveling, or doing outdoor activities, I get this and some Olympus and Panasonic lenses. Very different types of cameras.

It has far more in common with the A9 than the Canon EOS-1D X Mark II and the Nikon D5. However I missed the fact that the A9 was included in the comparisons in the following sentence so MY MISTAKE.

"Olympus makes clear that, even more than its existing E-M1 II model, the E-M1X is intended to be an out-and-out sports camera for professional photographers. As such, that puts it in the company of the Canon EOS-1D X Mark II, the Nikon D5 and Sony's a9.

However, its price and sensor size mean it makes sense to also see where it sits relative to Panasonic's G9 (its fast, photo-focused model) and Nikon's APS-C sports model, the D500. Space constraints mean we've had to omit the D5 from this table."

I will say that because of the price the D500 makes a compelling and cost effective alternative because it's $1000 cheaper and may be even better as a sports camera.

@Rex CI see no reason to lug an EM1x for hiking or traveling at all. Its huge and heavy--the EM1ii is more than capable at that, lighter, smaller and significantly less expensive. the EM1x is designed for you to post up in a press area and shoot pro sports but its not as good as the competition for that type of role. I just don't see a market for this camera.

Comparisons with A9 make it look even more pathetic. At least when compared to D5 and 1DX, you can say 'oh those are big because they are DSLRs and it's ancient tech'. But then A9 is what, half the size and weight? Or less? And it's still a sports-targeted pro MILC, with FF to boot.

Sure M1X can be used to hammer down nails under a waterfall. Okay there's an advantage for some people. So what if Sony makes a A9X with an integrated grip and brutal weather sealing that won't be too expensive, where will be M1X's niche then?

And whatever the sub-sub-niche for the M1X is, when it comes to fast action without shelling out 10 grand, D500 eats its lunch any time anyway.

I have very bad feeling from these comments and review (conclusion is like execution). All is about mainstream. What is your personal requirement for your photography? Maybe Phase One is not enough for you. Try this camera, personal feeling is more important.

Few people today can make decisions based on personal evaluation. They lack the courage of their convictions if it means swimming in the opposite direction.Crowdsourced opinions are safer for most people who lack the confidence to stand out.

Too bad is quite difficult for most people to actually find a place to try to camera or rent it. Oly makes great stuff even if this is not necessarily my type of camera (would rather get a renewed pen), I am still somewhat tempted and in a parallel universe where money are no issue I would get one without thinking twice.

Like you, Alfred S, I am interested in the AF performance of this new body. In some ways I am confused at the results that DPreview presents, because in some cases they are great and others much less so.

I wonder if they 'are doing it wrong.' Most other reviews/reviewers have noted that the EM1x has better focusing than any other m4/3 camera before it. I don't think it is as good as the D5 or A9 but it is very good.

This site seems to have some good words to say about it:https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/best/mirrorless-cameras-for-wildlife-and-bird-photography/"The update I appreciated the most on the E-M1X is the autofocus performance. It still uses 121 cross-type hybrid points like the E-M1 II but the re-designed algorithm brings a significant improvement to performance. For instance, it gave me a much better keeper rate for birds in flight – around 74%, or 91% if I include the slightly soft images. (The mark II model was around 55/70%.)"

I have to say that I adore my Olympus cams but image quality is not a match for my FF Nikon Z6. Still, Olympus has it's place in my arsenal and their cams are fun to shoot. Wish Olympus would adopt a larger sensor in the near future.

Olympus adopt a larger sensor. Choice is such a terrible thing and the sooner we just make my sort of camera the better. Difficult to see how Olympus could support multiple sensors and putting yet another mount in to the circus with the ever declining audience for this specialist stuff.

I shoot both Fuji and Olympus. Once you get past the initial Olympus menus (which are not all that complex), shooting Olympus is a dream--the camera gets out of the way. Plus, IBIS ensures more shots. Fuji has a "look," which if you love it, is wonderful. But skin tone is waxy, no IBIS, the ergonomics aren't terrible, but there is a bunch of weirdness that you have to overcome and learn. As for IQ, Olympus is inherently sharper, Fuji richer, Fuji one stop better in low light. Otherwise, no difference.

Picture quality is with Oly is superb. Body quality is superb. I used now to Oly about 6 weeks and when i take Sony in my hand i laugh. It is bad joke versus Oly.Colors is better than Sonys and you don't need that much pp with Oly.I love my Sony GM lenses and these are only thing to keep Sony bodies.If i have keep only one system it is definitely Oly.

All these people saying that you can't tell the resolution and iq difference in large prints are blind or lying. I can tell it on my 4k screen! Wasn't happy with the output of mft at all so I upgraded and it's very obvious. Remember that 20mp mft sensor only has about 5mp colour resolution!

Guys, it's just a 4k screen, and mft is noticeably blurrier and lacking in detail compared to my ff when it has to fill it. It's not pixel peeping, just a desktop background. A large print can achieve significantly more detail than even that. I'm sure your mft prints are nice if you're looking at them from far enough away or your eyes aren't what they used to be... Doesn't change the facts.

As for the guesses of the demosaicing algorithm - they are just that. That's why the 4 shot high res mode works so well on the a7r3 and the K1.

100% bulls - dynamic range and resolution in prints are far below all modern cameras. It’s only the flatnoser segment - those that bang their nose flat against their screen while inspecting individual pixels at 100% (or more) magnification that appreciate the difference.

1.7m the last time. It was an older shot, taken with my em52 in high res mode funnily enough. Still had to apply all the Topaz ai magic to make it work though. Still, A3 or super high dpi A4 is more than enough to see the difference.

This discussion is becoming more and more like a political debate. And as with political debates everyone keeps criticizing the others policies, and no one is prepared to change their attitude no matter how well informed the person speaking might be.

I do not like the idea of selling the old sensor in the new flagship camera model like in Fuji X-H. However, in case of Olympus, we have a camera for completely different purposes than E-M1: sport and wildlife. But do not understand why Fuji has created the X-H series instead of adding stabilization to X-T as X-T3 has strong video capabilities. The colors are the most important in photography so I considered Fuji and Olympus. But just the lack of stabilization in X-T2 prompted me to enter the MFT system because I do not use a tripod.

Go back and look at the original announcement if you can find it. They made numerous comparisons to the 1DXii and D5 in all the marketing materials. It was very clear that they were pushing the E-M1ii as a 1D/D series competitor.

It's amazing just how much heated discussion can ensue when the topic is Micro 4/3. I just smile and make highly satisfying photos with my m4/3 kit, just as I have since 2011.

No, I'm not dissing any other system. I'm just saying that m43, in and of itself, can make very satisfying photos. There's no need for heated discussion or debate. Either it works for you or it does not.

I still don’t see the point to this. A 4:3 camera with inferior image quality. And no matter what the fans of the format scream, it is inferior.

The body is big and heavy. It’s fairly expensive.

Where are the advantages? With a 20mp sensor with worse noise and dynamic range, it can’t brag about image quality. So what can Olympus barge about? They have some very good lenses, but then, so do their competitors.

Trying to bring this format in direct competition with APS-C, much less full frame, professionally, seems to be an exercise in futility.

I’d like to remind everyone that when 4:3 first came out, the slogan spelled what it was there for:

“The best compromise of size, weight and image quality.”

Note the word “compromise”. That is truer today than it was when the format first came out.

And, while the boundaries of the E-M1X's envelope are smaller than those of a larger-format system, its sensor actually performs extremely well for its size, so in any area of overlap in capability, the Olympus will out-perform most rivals.

Yes, there's an absolute IQ/system size/price trade-off, but that's true of all systems. It's simplistic to assume one is best for everyone.

Surely by that logic a full frame camera is a compromise compared to medium format etc. The 4/3 system isn't for everyone and people often forget that the size of the camera body is only part of the equation. There are some stellar lenses from Panasonic and Olympus that are really portable, even on the telephoto side of things.

It depends what you like to photograph too, if you want to shoot Astro or low light sports, music or theatre then this isn't the best system for you.

It is always a compromise but it is the first camera system I am happy with because I am much more likely to have it and a variety of lenses with me as they are portable. Honestly some of my best pictures are shot on my iPhone, not because its camera is the best but because I always have it with me.

I wonder if Melgross has ever used a m43 camera. I wonder if Melgross is actually any good at photography. It seems he is more into belief systems than creative expression. His beliefs are based on propaganda and disinformation. I actually used to be one who was a conformist, then I tried a m43 which performed better than a FF camera which was only 3 years prior in generation. Technology has already evolved enough that image quality is good enough on any system. I must have had about 500+ of my food photography images in shopping magazines in the past 6 years and they have all looked incredibly sharp and spot on colour. You can't tell any difference between the FF that I was using to the M43 that I am using. I also have had my work printed to an A1 size and what do you know, M43 holds up very well. Just look at comparison videos on youtube for prints and you won't be able to tell what camera did what.

You’re obviously missing something. And why the rant if so certain? Why did people shoot 35mm film when far superior IQ was available in medium format? Photography is about the image. The tool that allows you to get in and do the job and get the image is what’s important. The EM1X although may not have the overall IQ of FF allows you to shoot in ways that FF simply does not offer. This was the same with the introduction of the 35mm standard. Whilst it lacked in IQ it allowed certain things to be achieved in photography that could not be achieved with larger format film.

Go on assignment for 3 weeks in 35 Centigrade 90+% humidity carrying a pair of bodies with 17-35 f2.8 and 70-200mm f2.8 or equivalent all day every day and you will soon see where the advantages lie....

Everyone seems to have forgotten that what is called "full frame" nowadays, was the subject of laughter in the film days, when 35mm was considered inferior, too grainy, lacking of contrast as compared to 6x4.5, 6x6 or 10".

You buy, use and carry the system, not a one body and one lens. You have just one camera in your hands when using it, but you carry more. And professionals lug even more gear with them all the time, not just one camera but multiple bodies and multiple lenses and all the flashes etc.

And they have assistant that is carrying everything else really. They just then extend hand and assistant gives the second camera with wanted lens etc. And why do these assistant are there? Because the FF setups are extremely heavy and big. For a travel photographer there is not just one camera and maybe two bodies, but far far more. And you basically have a car that you need to move that setup and yourself.

But you can't go everywhere with the car, you still need to carry your camera bag kilometers every day, all the time. So every kilogram that you can shave off from the setup, it is huge gain.

I just did a very quick and VERY casual review of other recent camera reviews and camera specific articles on DPR. Of the group I sampled, this review has generated the most comments.

I think this is indicative of the disruptive nature of m43s and, possibly, of Olympus itself. Olympus has always heard 'camera music' differently from the rest of the industry, and probably will continue to dance to that music well into the future.

m43s and 4/3s in general have been its most disruptive product line so far. Would there have been a Sony FF mirrorless if not for m43s? Would there have been a Canon or Nikon mirrorless without Oly or Panasonic?

I don't think so. And m43s was disruptive while trash talk was going on about it the whole time. Lots of 'trash talk' about how inferior 4/3s and m43s is since 2008, at least. I think writing the "X" off as an odd and inferior product is premature, at the very least. I hope I last 20 more years to see what camera industry is like then.

It would be disruptive, if it changed things. But it doesn’t. Olympus has 2% marketshare. Yes, that’s 2%! No manufacturer has taken up the format since its beginnings, and at least one has dropped out.

While they’re adamant about staying with 4:3, theyr sales are dropping along with everyone else’s. But they sell far fewer cameras and lenses.

Again, Olympus has a 2% marketshare, so fans should stop talking about how disruptive they are. They are not.

Like ice cream, disruption comes in many flavors. True Olympus has a small share of the overall market. But do you REALLY believe we'd be looking at the marginalization of the DSLR form factor if m43s hadn't sprung into existence?

Even if you are a DSLR hold out, the mere fact that you have to address this issue is a reaction to the m43s disruptive influence.

With a product like this and nothing else that is worthy looking at, that 4% Olympus market share Thom mentioned 4 months ago is probably about 2% now. There have been many exciting new cameras released in those months.

Sometimes, the market shares reported by Thom Hogan are for the ILC market, not the entire camera market. Could it be that Olympus has a 4% share in ILC, but a 2% share when compact cameras are added? They're basically only selling one model now, the TG-5.

@Glen - that's one way to look at the comments. Another way to look at it is that the system that is shrinking with less marketshare - the remaining people become more active/defensive. It happened with 4/3rds.

"@Glen - that's one way to look at the comments. Another way to look at it is that the system that is shrinking with less marketshare - the remaining people become more active/defensive. It happened with 4/3rds."

So you are saying that more defensive/active the format users are, then smaller the market share is.

No wonder that FF users are so active and so defensive as their miniature market share is so miniscule that they can't even find other FF users among all the APS-C and smartphone users unless they have these very specific organized gatherings like Olympics.

I'm not all that interested in the moral and emotional character of people who love photography. While I would vigorously defend m43s as a valid choice for many, I can't in good conscience, say that a FF DSLR is a bad choice, or even that using the camera on my new Pixel 3a is a bad idea. (it's a VERY GOOD, if somewhat limited, camera!) I think we are starting to drift out into the weeds of useless commentary!

It might be a fantastic camera, but without faster glass, I don't see how this is going to compete with FF for sports shooters.

MFT 35-100 f2.8 or 40-150 f2.8 are great lenses but they can't compete with a FF 70-200 f2.8. The MFT is giving up two stops on ISO and the inevitable noise. The DOF separation won't be as good either assuming you've nailed focus of course.

Lets take a m43 camera and FF like Sony A7 III and set both at ISO 6400 and take photos and make a A4 size prints. Those prints are larger than most will ever need for magazines. You can't see the noise at all even when either one has gone through denoising. You can raise the ISO to 12800 and still see no such difference that you think. Now if one does ISO 3200 and slight denoising, now you can go up to A3-A2 sizes without difference. And that is visually compared in optimal case.

We can then go to take the common digital forms, 0.5-1 Mpix files on webpages, For a full download performance it is 2.1Mpix, same as Full HD. That put then through heavy compression as no one is going to set a news site with 5 MB files, but they need to be under 100 MB, again the advantages of the A7 III sensor are gone in noise performance.

Sports is an available light application and benefits from the larger sensor, fast shutter and high ISO. That blurry crowd in the background is important too. A professional sports shooter isn't going to want to run photos through a denoiser. I'm a m43 shooter myself and I agree that it is suitable for nearly every other application. Unfortunately I don't see the pro sports shooter switching to the EM1x even if Olympus paid them. Hope I'm proven wrong.

A sportsman who is half in focus is not better than who is fully in focus. And that is why you have denoise in the body, you don't need to run through any other denoiser if not wantd.

And as repeated, ISO 12800, 1/1250-2000, f/2.8 and you don't separate A9 from E-M1 II at the A4 size prints by any other means than the bokeh. But if the bokeh is so important for you, then you have failed as photographer because you need to document the event, not to take bad portraits where background blur is more important than the event and the person.

And no, the pros do not switch because they are vendor locked to Canon and Nikon. Sony is catching now only the new photographers who are not custom to anything and have not invested but are free to try something flashy new heavily marketed system. Sony Playstation is familiar for them, but none of them likely even know what Canon printer or scanner is. So Sony phones, gaming devices, music etc are selling Sony cameras to young people.

this camera isn't really competing with dslrs, because the a9 rendered dslrs largely obsolete for sports shooting... about the only reason to buy a dslr for sports is to leverage your investment in dslr lenses, or get extreme telephoto primes that you don't want to use on sony.

somebody posted e-m1x rugby photos in an earlier post, so what can you get for the same price with sony, with comparable fov/dof.

One can put arbitrary packages together of any brand to make it look better or worse.

I'd prefer to let each camera stand on its own merits. The A9 is impressive; there is no question.

This EM1X is _at least_ one firmware release (and maybe an entire hardware generation) away from being comparable on the focus side of that equation, but that's not because it's poor at focus tracking, but rather because the A9 is so FREAKING impressive.

But the lens advantage of m43 is staggering with respect to size and weight and reach. I shoot with several formats, but at the long end, the weight and size of m43 is quite manageable in contrast. Yes, you give up two stops of light, and yes, that can be a deal-breaker. Either you can live with it, or not. (I _mostly_ can live with it, but I'm not doing this for money.)

(I would have probably gone with a 1" sensor for long end shooting instead of m43, had such a thing existed when I first bought m43. The Nikon 1 series had a great long end zoom.)

60 fps is with S-AF, which FYI is a mode of autofocus, and has many uses. CAF is another mode of AF and has many uses, too. You knew that, surely, before making judgement on this camera? And yet you say it has "no AF at all" at 60 fps? LOL

I can tell you are here to trash talk, and you don't even know the camera.

How many AF points does EOS R have (5,655), or X-T3 (2,160,000)? Oops. Maybe "more is better" is not the answer to every question. That's why I point out that the M1X has all-cross-point PDAF: quality over quantity.

I admire the A9 a lot, but it is not an M1X plus more. Each of those models can do some things -- important things -- that the other cannot. There is still a decision to make. If one suits you more than the other, then that's one person having an easy decision: you. But don't go around as if there is no decision and no-one will prefer the M1X. That's ignorant.

congrats on confirming that this camera is limited to 18fps af-c, as I stated earlier.

don't make false claims that af-s is a viable choice over ospdaf in a sports scenario, that is ignorant... you clearly aren't a sports shooter, and that is one of the markets that the e-m1x is trying to target.

"not an M1X plus more" makes no sense whatsoever... the a9 has superior af over this e-m1x, in part because it has a stacked sensor... totally different league, cross-point ospdaf clearly makes no difference, read the review: "The E-M1X falls behind the competition in terms of overall focus speed and accuracy"

btw, eos-r dpaf is not ospdaf, oops! lol... the a6400 has better af than the x-t3.

"no firmware tweak can give the e-m1x comparable af to a9 af, in part for the hardware reasons that I already pointed out:

1) extremely low ospdaf pixel count,"

There's a bit of a misunderstanding here about the AF point count in mirrorless bodies. There are not 121 AF points on the sensor in the E-M1ii/E-M1X in the way that a DSLR actual has N AF points that correspond to N AF sensors, there are in fact many more points than that. It's just that there are only 121 user selectable points. You can see this easily enough when you look at the actual AF point used in any of the area or tracking modes, the point is usually in between the usual selectable points. You can also see the signature of the phase detect AF pixels in the readout noise if you stack many images without subtracting a flat frame and you can see that the PDAF pixels cover a very significant fraction of the sensor.

Again, you're fundamentally misunderstanding how OSPDAF is implemented. The camera has 121 user selectable points. There are in fact many more PDAF points than that on the sensor. I brought up DSLR AF arrays because you are thinking of OSPDAF points in terms of DSLR AF sensor terms.

"don't make false claims that af-s is a viable choice over ospdaf in a sports scenario, that is ignorant... you clearly aren't a sports shooter, and that is one of the markets that the e-m1x is trying to target."

You clearly are not.

Most sports situations are all in the stationary range from the camera.

The moments where example javelin thrower throws it is at the specific range, all the time. The position of the long jumper to jump is specific range, all the time, and landings are even almost all in the same, relative to DOF and direction it is always the same.A baseball player hitting the ball is always the same, the pitcher is as well always in the same position. A golf player is always in the same position. A chess player is always in same position. A 100 meter sprinter will always cross the goal line at the specific position, A shooters (arrows, rifles, shotguns) are always on the same range.A rally car jumping from the hill is always at the same range in the air.

A high jumper is always jumping over the bar in same distance. A basketball player is always jumping under the same ranges and positions. A icehockey goalie is always on the same position.

Most in the sports actions happens in the exact range from the camera (and relative to the DOF and the perspective) and the actions are split seconds, not multiple seconds across the long distance changes. It is literally that football player kicking the ball, it is around less than 1 meter range difference, well inside the DOF. The american football player throwing a ball is again at stationary distance because balance. A ball catching is again stationary range as no one cares if the ball is 10 meters from the receiver or has the receive already completed and advanced 3 meters, the moment is just catching the ball or just before it. All that are relative to DOF and the camera range, stationary.

Almost all in the sports can be captured with SAF, and CAF is über overstated feature among amateurs.

"Also I wouldn't compare the EM1X AF with the A9, which is pretty much noted widely by reviewers as having superior AF to the EM1X."

By the same reviewers who doesn't even know what difference is between tracking and AF, and what are difference between CAF and AF.

You are trying to base your argument for amateurs and people who have zero understanding about technology, only because they are famous youtubers and gear reviewers, that they shouldn't be in the first place! Most of them are nothing more than a sheeps repeating the marketing material and then making their own kool aid and drinking it. Look the DPR reviewers, lots of fallacies full, totally bad AF tests, false claims, improper testings and results.

Give either one to a professional sports photographer and they make both of them sing far better than anything DPR has ever produced as samples or in their reviews. You can't go wrong with either one, A9 or E-M1 line.

You don't have. As you don't even do video with manual focus. It is super easy to prefocus on the given areas as the athletes do not move in situations as I said or the action is inside DOF. That is why SAF works almost all the times

"no, that is wrong again... dpr uses the same basic test for all cameras, and the e-m1x was weaker than the competition, they posted the pics to prove it."

A: "Reviewers don't know what difference is between tracking and continuous automatic focusing"

B: "You are wrong again, they do all the same tests for everyone".

Again, you totally fail to even realize what is talked about. If you are stupid and you use wrong settings in situation or you use right settings in wrong situation, it is your failure when you can't perform. And if you go to write how the other is more failing than something else when you use wrong settings, it is again your fault that you did it wrong.

"Most in the sports actions happens in the exact range from the camera"

proof positive that you don't have any idea how to shoot sports... running sports like football, soccer, field hockey, etc. will give far fewer keepers with the weak af-c on this e-m1x.

"super easy to prefocus"

don't pretend to tell me about how to use mf, lol... it will NOT work well for most sports shooting.

"JuurikasJoined on Feb 25, 2019"

just another m4/3 fake account, with no gallery and no challenge pics to back up your false pretensions of expertise... you come out here trashing dpr testing, with absolutely nothing to back up anything that you claim.

You can get a Nikon D850, 46 megapixel full frame camera on sale right now for $2999. Add the AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/4E PF ED VR for another $1999. The total weight for the Nikon camera and lens is 5lbs. 2 ozs. Total system cost $5000. This Olympus OM-D E-M1X camera sells for $3000 and weighs 2lbs 3ozs. The Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 300mm f/4 IS PRO Lens sells for $2400 and weighs 3lbs. 4ozs. Total weight for camera and lens is 5lbs. 7ozs. Total system cost $5400. To sum up: Nikon, Full Frame, 46 megapixel system, camera and 300mm lens weighs 5lbs. 2ozs and sells $5,000. Olympus, 4/3 Crop Sensor, 20.4 megapixel system, camera and 300mm lens weighs 5lbs. 7ozs and sells for $5400. Oh and if you wanted the 600mm equivalent that the Olympus gives you with this system on the Nikon, crop your photos. If I had to choose how I would spend my $5000, I'd get the Nikon system everyday of the week and twice on Sunday's.

While I am outdoors, at a lake or in the forest, capturing images with my EM1X (and EM1mk2 before that) and 4/300, I regularly meet many others using all of the lovely comparable equipment listed above and more.They often like to show me their images and I often reciprocate. Funny thing...I've never not gotten a..."Oh Wow!!!" or some other positive comment when showing results from the m4/3 package I use.

It's kind of amazing to see the equivalence monitors commenting below. I don't see anywhere in the review where the term "equivalence" was mentioned. Micro 4/3 is a format. If you want to produce an "equivalent" (indistinguishable) photo on a "full frame" sensor ... but wait, why would you want to do that? Use each format to its best advantage. Want 1" deep depth of field? Probably want a full frame camera. Want 600mm reach with an easily hand-held 300mm zoom? And typically more depth of field that a FF lens with equivalent angle of view? Then Micro 4/3 has the advantage. There are very fine lenses for m4/3: the Leica labeled lenses from Panasonic, the pro Oly lenses, and Sigma lenses. To ask "Why on earth would anyone want this?" expresses a lack of understanding that sometimes a crop factor of two sensor give you, the photographer, an advantage.

The point missed here is that you can reproduce the same result on FF but not the other way around in terms of DOF, etc. So it's fair to put equivalence to see what exactly you are getting. What m43rds is about is smaller size/weight, but Panasonic / Olympus need to stop this big body madness.

I cant figure out why anyone wants to lug around giant larger format systems with bulky tripods when all they offer are marginal IQ improvements shooting fast moving objects in the dark. And marginally better AF for $$$$$ more.

APSC and FF used to have a wider gap of image quality improvements, that has narrowed considerably in the scope of "practical" needs. If anything, m4/3 need even faster aperture lenses in the lineup to really even out the depth of field comparisons to larger sensors.

The point of diminishing returns with technology, the "more is better" drive, has been reached some time ago. Pretty much every camera system is more capable than most would ever need.

IMHO: Old arguments need to be let go. Focus on photography and stop obsessing about gear. It's all so incredibly capable these days there are no more excuses to be put on any camera system.

If I want to have the same DoF on FF as I have with this cam, I need to raise the iso by two stops on the FF cam, and if I then compare IQ - Noise levels (like with the a7iii), there is not a lot of difference. So... the conclusion maybe cutting some corners here.

There is no problem. The review draw a conclusion and I am just stating they cut a corner there. And it would be a pity if people made a decision to buy into a system based on incorrect information, so... I just gave that info about the IQ. It would be a shame if people would buy an FF kit and then come to the conclusion that for their use... the gain they expected is not there!

Lots of hate toward m43 from low-esteem people who own FF or APS-C and are frighten how a smaller, cheaper and lighter system offers more than comparable larger format and equal image quality in real production (pixel peeping, digital DPR studio sample comparisons _are not_ real production quality nor resemble it).

In one day there has come 400 comments more about the system. And possible it will quickly generate even more in next day or two than ones like D850 that has 2101 comments at this moment.

The m43 system is not dead, it is clearly the best out there is as even DPR tries all their powers to sideline it with very odd comparisons and claims. And larger format users are frighten how "so tiny" can perform better than theirs.

Indeed. A famous landscape photographer I know has an image in his gallery for sale for about $30,000 US.

He probably spent $15,000 to get the image. It took him 5 days of helicopter charter, a 5 day camp (with the helicopter pilot etc) in the back country and a pilot who could fly at night. Not to mention a gyro stabiliser on his camera.

The image is fabulous though - if I win Lotto this weekend, I will give him a call!

Strangle I always feel that it is the 4/3 fraternity that feels inadequate, as they are always having to justify their purchase. I go to several organised photo opportunities, and whereas the CaNikon/ Sony users simply get on with it, 4/3 users have to keep on about how good their equipment is

"Lots of hate toward m43 from low-esteem people...offers more than comparable larger format and equal image quality in real production".

LOL. It has nothing to do with m43. Humanity, in general, is rife with lots of low self-esteem, hateful people. As someone who formerly used both systems, I finally has to abandon m43 and replace it with mirrorless APS-C as my lightweight camera. While m43 and point n shoot cameras are certainly capable of producing quality images, they struggle too much when lighting is less than optimal. There is simply no comparison to FF IQ once the ISO begins to climb.

Interesting that that some m4/3 owners seem to be rather thin skinned, at the first sign of anybody not adoring their system they resort to name calling. I own a Pano G9, and certainly could not get that interested in the subject to 'hate' a fellow user. As for the sobriquet ''low esteem people' I judge that to be both vacuous, and meaningless

Juurikas, even with good lighting on any of my Canon or Sony FF cameras, I can tell the difference when ISO climbs to 3200 or 6400. Even though I stopped at the GH4, anything above ISO 800 was extremely noticeable when it came to IQ.

We spoke to Shigemi Sugimoto, the head of Olympus's imaging division at the CP+ show in Yokohama. He talked to us about the appeal of Micro Four Thirds and gave some hints about the types of technology the company is looking at.

With 'Deep Learning' autofocus, crazy-fast burst speeds and refined ergonomics, the E-M1X is the most focused action and sports shooting camera that Olympus has ever made. Here's how it squares up against some key Micro Four Thirds and APS-C competitors.

Chris and Jordan recently reviewed the Olympus E-M1X as a camera for still photography. Now they're back with a whole episode about its video features. Watch to find out where this camera really excels – as well as a couple places where there's room to grow.

Latest in-depth reviews

The Edelkrone DollyONE is an app-controlled, motorized flat surface camera dolly. The FlexTILT Head 2 is a lightweight head that extends, tilts and pans. They aren't cheap, but when combined these two products provide easy camera mounting, re-positioning and movement either for video work or time lapse photography.

Are you searching for the best image quality in the smallest package? Well, the GR III has a modern 24MP APS-C sensor paired with an incredibly sharp lens and fits into a shirt pocket. But it's not without its caveats, so read our full review to get the low-down on Ricoh's powerful new compact.

The HD Pentax-D FA* 50mm F1.4 SDM AW is a high quality standard prime lens for Ricoh's full-frame Pentax DSLRs. Ricoh has made great claims about its pro-grade construction and excellent sharpness – how does it stack up?

Latest buying guides

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

What’s the best camera costing over $2000? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2000 and recommended the best.

What's the best camera for shooting sports and action? Fast continuous shooting, reliable autofocus and great battery life are just three of the most important factors. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting sports and action, and recommended the best.

What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

We've updated our waterproof camera buying guide with the latest round of rugged compacts, and we've crowned a new winner as the best pick in the category: the Olympus TG-6. That is, unless you happen to find a good deal on the TG-5.

Researchers with the Samsung AI Center in Moscow and the Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology have created a system that transforms still images into talking portraits with as little as a single image.

K&R Photographics, a camera store in Crescent Springs, Kentucky, was robbed by armed men, who not only took thousands of dollars worth of camera equipment, but also injured the 70-year-old co-owner of the store.

The new Fujifilm GFX 100 boasts some impressive specifications, including 100MP, in-body stabilization and 4K video. But what's it like to shoot with? Senior Editor Barnaby Britton found out on a recent trip to Florence, Italy.

It's here! The long-awaited next-generation Fujifilm GFX has been officially launched. Click through to learn more about the camera that Fujifilm is hoping will shake up the pro photography market - the GFX100.

We've known about the Fujifilm GFX 100 since last fall, but now it's official: this 102MP medium-format monster will be available at the end of June for $10,000. In addition to its incredible resolution, the camera also has in-body IS, a hybrid AF system, 4K video and a removable EVF.

According to DJI, any drone model weighing over 250 grams will have AirSense Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) receivers installed to help drone operators know when planes and helicopters are nearby.

Chris and Jordan are kicking off a new segment in which they make feature suggestions to manufacturers for the benefit of all photographer-kind. To start things off, they take a look at the humble USB-C port and everything it could be doing for us.

The Olympus TG-5 is one of our favorite waterproof cameras, and the company today introduced the TG-6, a relatively low-key update. New features include the addition of an anti-reflective coating on the sensor, a higher-res LCD, and more underwater and macro modes.

The Leica Q2 is an impressively capable fixed-lens, full-frame camera with a 47MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and brings a host of updates to the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116) that was launched in 2015.

We've been playing around with a prototype of the new Peak Design Travel Tripod and are impressed so far: it's incredibly compact, fast to deploy and stable enough for the heaviest bodies. However, the price may turn some away.